Gross is gross and net is net: simple, right?
Gross is gross and net is net: simple, right?
复制标题
毛就是毛，净就是净：很简单，对吧？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
William Saxonis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Ridge;M. Baker;N. Hall;R. Prahl;William Saxonis
确定正确的基线对于准确估计任何措施的严重影响至关重要。例如，对于耗尽更换(ROB)或附加，可以使用各种基准，包括适用的地方、州和联邦能源规范和标准以及当前实践，该实践用于表示消费者在市场上平均购买的设备的能源使用情况。然而，一些评估者现在认为，将目前的做法作为估计总影响的基线，然后使用净额与毛利率(NTGR)调整这些节余是错误的，因为在许多方面，节余总额更接近净额，而不是毛。虽然两位作者一致认为，参考与当前做法相关的年度能源使用与回扣措施之间的差异并不是纯粹的净节省，但他们在推荐哪些解决方案方面存在分歧。
The identification of the correct baseline is essential for accurately estimating the gross impacts of any measure. For example, for replacement on burnout (ROB) or an addition, there are various baselines that could be used including applicable local, state and federal energy codes and standards and current practice, which is used to represent the energy use of equipment purchased on average by consumers in the market. However, some evaluators are now arguing that using current practice as the baseline for estimating gross impacts and then adjusting these savings using a net–to–gross ratio (NTGR) is a mistake since the gross savings are in many ways closer to net than gross. While the authors agree that to refer to the difference between annual energy use associated with current practice and that of the rebated measure is not purely net savings, they disagree about which solutions to recommend.